Talk:Creationism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oldstone James (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 5 November 2017 (→Creationism & pseudoscience). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:36, 5 November 2017 by Oldstone James (talk | contribs) (→Creationism & pseudoscience)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creationism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise on frequently on the talk page concerning Creationism.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should the article characterize creationism as a religious belief? (Yes.) A1: Yes. Creationism is a religious belief; it is not a theory. Q2: Should the article use the term myth? (Yes.) A2: Yes. Myth as used in the context of the article means "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form." This terminology is extensively used in religion and comparative religion fields of study at the academic and scholarly levels, as well as in many of the reliable sources cited in the article. With this in mind, usage of the term is explicitly supported by WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA.

FAQ notes and references:

Creationism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 29, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Religion High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Theology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Zoroastrianism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Creationism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

To-do list for Creationism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-01-29

Add section on the differences/similarities/conflict between Intelligent Design and Creationism.
Add section on the beliefs creationists have on what the mainstream fields of science have to say on the origins of life and the universe.

Priority 2

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of creationism please do so at talk.origins or Debatepedia. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Archives

Topical archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Fact vs conclusion, etc

There seems to be a recent slow-paced edit war between using both terms. I invite editors who replace/revert this word to discuss it here. Possibly of interest would be evolution as fact and theory and fact. It appears to me that both terms could be valid: colloquial fact can be used to describe conclusions of a scientific theory. But we also ideally should describe what reliable source say, and in this case the immediate inline one is only about the definition of creationism as a belief, so it doesn't use fact or conclusion. If this problem persists, we may need to find and use a reliable source as well as a quote. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 04:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was an edit war going on– I saw what looked like NPOV and reverted it. Sorry. Anyways, I did some searching to see if I could find anything. Most of the sources on the Abiogenesis page are all books so I can't really look at them. My main thought is that a scientific fact is an observation and theories/hypotheses/conclusions are things we determine through interpretation. Reliable source about that here. And since abiogenesis is not something humans actually observed, given that we weren't around for the origin of life, it is not a fact. That doesn't mean it's not true, as may be implied by the colloquial understanding of factual/nonfactual, just as gravity is a theory not a fact. Blue Edits (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Until you called my attention to it here, I had not noticed the EW. I had changed it back to conclusion as I had assumed abiogenesis would not be considered a fact. I would think that the fact/conclusion should be based upon RS and not my OR. Is such a source cited on abiogenesis? Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest changing scientific conclusion to current scientific view. The science seems to be very shaky and driven more by the desire to prove a theory rather than to look objectively at all possibilities. There are also so many instances of scientific fraud in this field, that it has become very questionable indeed. How is it good science to be conclusive about an issue which is so large and complex that we cannot possibly know for sure? We all know that observation is revealing new evidences all the time; and in many instances this requires us to completely rewrite our text-books. Conclusion is just not the right word; it is arrogant and assumes that we know all there is to know, which is just not the case, and does not demonstrate a proper scientific attitude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.102.153 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2017‎

Not really - this has been debated before and that is the current scientific conclusion on the subject. To call it a "view" would suggest that there are alternative "views" which are of equal validity, which clearly there are not. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine; then as you write in your comment, let's use the current scientific conclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.102.153 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2017‎

I suggest "the fact", considering that we can express the scientific consensus in Misplaced Pages's voice. —Paleo Neonate – 13:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Fact" is fine, but probably better just to remove "current", as it gives the impression that consensus is changing regularly, which clearly it is not. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And the IP needs to learn a bit about the scientific method. I agree that there have been a number of frauds but those have been done by Creationists (or the odd nationalist in one case). Doug Weller talk 15:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

cat:Denialism

I don't see anything to support the current use of category:Denialism. Per wp:V, it would seem that content and references should be added or cat:denialism removed. Jim1138 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There have been discussions on this before: Talk:Creationism/Archive 24#Denialism category, Talk:Creationism/Archive 23#Categories I wp:V is mentioned in the latter. Jim1138 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Notifying recent editors: @McSly, PaleoNeonate, Doug Weller, Karlpoppery, DVdm, Apokryltaros, and Just plain Bill: Too many. Worth a RfC? Jim1138 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Among other things, modern-day Creationism makes the DENIALISM of, more or less, the totality of science and everything else that does not agree with its proponents an irrevocably sacrosanct foundation, i.e., the incessant nattering of Christians saying "you can't believe in Jesus and Darwinism (sic) at the same time."--Mr Fink (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Creationism is often linked to denialism by credible sources, and thus the creationism article belong in the denialism category. Here's a few sources if anyone doubt this :

http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/71/64

https://ncse.com/node/12321

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780/Denialism-what-is-it-and-how-should-scientists

https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=905739916030048;res=IELHSS

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469816/ KarlPoppery (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think all of these are talking about Young Earth Creationism in particular (the third reference explicitly so) not Creationism per se. St Anselm (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to explain why you think the sources are only talking about Young Earth Creationism, I don't see that at all. KarlPoppery (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The third article says "The rejection of scientific evidence is also apparent in the popularity of creationism, with an estimated 45% of Americans in 2004 believing that God created man in his present form within the past 10 000 years." That's specifically Young Earth Creationism. St Anselm (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

They gave a statistic about YEC, it doesn't mean that the article is only talking about YEC. Many forms of OEC also deny the mechanisms of evolution. KarlPoppery (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the false belief that humans have existed for less than 10,000 years also applies to Day-age creationism. It is not at all exclusive to Young Earth creationism. Further, the quoted sentence on its does not directly state that 'creationism' only applies to the "45% of Americans" who hold that specific errant position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

um, this article does say in the lead, " rejection of the scientific theory of evolution." This seems pretty obviously denialism. Just like climate change denialists reject what science says about that. Hard to understand what the counter argument is. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole sentence says "For young Earth creationists, these beliefs are based on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and rejection of the scientific theory of evolution." Old earth creationists will usually accept evolution, and so it's the YEC article that should be in the category (which it is). St Anselm (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to comment. It's indeed much less likely for those who believe in theistic evolution to deny much of science (although some other forms of creationism like Day Age also deny evolution). Some accept that "adaptation within a Kind" may have occurred but still mix abiogenesis with evolution and deny wider common lineage. Some movements also deny other aspects of science like anthropogenic climate change (like is done at Ark Encounter, that is indeed from a YEC movement)... Although Catholicism appears to now accept evolution, depending on whom and where superstitions can still be rampant (it is also so widely spread that many syncretic variants exist). For the category, it seems trickier to unambiguously support categories with a reference or quote, versus with a sentence... — Paleo Neonate — 05:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Definition

I'm not a creationist or a religious person myself, but in articles like this one, I always see some sort of bias towards the "scientific" viewpoint.

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation," as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes

This is a clear provocation. I, alone, cannot fix Misplaced Pages, but I'll make my small contribution to remove this sort of bias. The article is about creationism. Last but not least, this sentence implies that creationism was invented as a way to oppose science, when in reality, creationism existed for much, much longer. People who adds this sort of content are the cancer of Misplaced Pages. Holy Goo (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "as opposed to the scientific conclusion that..." does not imply that it was "invented as a way to oppose science". It just expresses a contrast—see http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/as-opposed-to . Also, this article is about the modern version, not about what existed long ago. Finally, the content is backed by the cited source and by the entire remainder of the article, so I agree with Bennv377's revert. - DVdm (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't particularly like the quoted sentence above (it's a little clunky for my taste), you should bear in mind that creationism, the historically-recent movement that this article describes (the lead mentions 1856), is — in part — an invention to oppose science. Embellished creationist fan-fiction, like Flood geology, has been invented to retrofit religious myths with a veneer of scientific plausibility for our modern knowledge of Earth's situation. Yes, creationism is built upon an older acceptance of established mythology, but it's not as simple as saying that "creationism existed for much, much longer" — modern creationist ideas owe their origin to the development of "rival" scientific ideas. And don't lose sight of the demonstrable fact that creationist proponents are disingenuous to a fault when it comes to misinterpreting and misrepresenting scientific facts. They are simply not honest brokers, and that is the root of much of the rancour "against" them. Of which, IMHO the article here bends over backwards to give as much time to them as their ideas merit. In any case, please identify clearly where you think this article is biased. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

--Anonymous: I consider biased the phrase "the term is commonly used for literal creationists who reject various aspects of science, and instead promote belief in pseudoscience". You don't need to be a creationist or unscientific to object to evolution, there is a scientific basis https://en.wikipedia.org/Objections_to_evolution. Might as well be supporting string theory and be calling loop quantum theory a pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:122D:EE00:A855:7C26:E78A:7169 (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It doesn't claim a scientific basis for objections, the introduction says evolution has received:

"overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community. The observation of evolutionary processes occurring (as well as the modern evolutionary synthesis explaining that evidence) has been uncontroversial among mainstream biologists since the 1940s. Since then, most criticisms and denials of evolution have come from religious groups, rather than from the scientific community. Although many religious groups have found reconciliation of their beliefs with evolution, such as through theistic evolution, other religious groups continue to reject evolutionary explanations in favor of creationism, the belief that the universe and life were created by supernatural forces. The U.S.-centered creation–evolution controversy has become a focal point of perceived conflict between religion and science. Several branches of creationism, including creation science, neo-creationism, and intelligent design, argue that the idea of life being directly designed by a god or intelligence is at least as scientific as evolutionary theory, and should therefore be taught in public education. Such arguments against evolution have become widespread and include objections to evolution's evidence, methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance. The scientific community does not recognize such objections as valid, pointing to detractors' misinterpretations of such things as the scientific method, evidence, and basic physical laws." Doug Weller talk 09:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

--Anonymous: I read the evidence below that equally biased introduction https://en.wikipedia.org/Objections_to_evolution#Evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/Objections_to_evolution#Impossibility and verified some of these objections with biologists who actually support evolution. I also investigated relative research papers from universities. I also noticed that the introduction you quoted has zero sources. How do we know that the scientific community considers invalid these objections? And even if they did, this would not disprove the evidence that led to these doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1205:9800:A855:7C26:E78A:7169 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This would not disprove the evidence that led to these doubts. Which actual evidence, which lead to doubts among most biologists and geologists? The lead is also sourced (with quote: ... rather than by natural processes such as evolution). On the other hand, I agree that creationism is not necessarily designed to contradict science, although the pseudoscientific arguments of some creationist movements are (there is a preset conclusion interpreted from a tradition, which must be supported by "mining" evidence which could support it and ignoring evidence which contradicts it). Those arguments are not only erroneous but are little against the weight of the overwhelming evidence for the age of the earth and evolution (evidence of common descent points to some). As for abiogenesis, it necessarily occurred because we are here, even if the means are still not understood as well as the mechanisms of evolution.
In any case, we go by what reliable sources say and I would support rewording the sentence to something like: Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution".(source) in which case we may need a second sentence to remind of the scientific consensus. A disadvantage is that apparently some mobile platforms often rely on the first sentence which is more visible; we now have a sentence which says both. —Paleo Neonate – 20:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I would not include "as in the biblical account". Many major religions have creation myths, not just Christianity. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That is likely also why this part of the quote was not included, although we can also understand that it is only an example chosen by the source writers. I agree that omitting it is reasonable. —Paleo Neonate – 01:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing OR, replacing with phrase supported by sources.

The phrase 'scientific conclusion' is not found in the original source (the dictionary). I don't know where it came from and must concluded it to be OR. It might be a logical addition, but its still OR.

The source I added indicates that natural processes are expected because Naturalism is the basis for understanding nature. So my change to the sentence is supported, logical, and quite clear. The reversions seem to have no logical basis. OtisDixon (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing instead of reinstated your change. The lead summarizes the article. A section of the article supports this sentence and adds more details: Creationism#Scientific_criticism. In some cases for very contentious sentences it may be appropriate to still support the sentence with an additional citation, this is otherwise unnecessary; in this case it's supported by a dictionary entry (which as you say does not exactly use the same formulation, but that is not always a problem). I'll also let others comment. —Paleo Neonate – 16:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As PaleoNeonate notes above, we currently have the OED online US version defining Creationism as The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.(source) but go from that to describing natural processes as a scientific conclusion.
OtisDixon has tried changing our wording from "scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes" to "naturalistic position that they came about through natural processes", while adding a dead link to a source which better supports the original wording. Steven Schafersman, "Naturalism Is Today An Essential Part of Science" as archived in October 2002 supports the point that methodological naturalism is inherent in science, and has been since the 19th century when science was defined by Herschel and Whewell.
We could use that source, or another, but worth modifying the wording. Suggest "as opposed to scientific explanations that they came about through natural processes." . . . dave souza, talk 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Creationism#Scientific_criticism section does not state that natural processes is a conclusion of science either. So the sentence in the lead is not supported by a source nor by the article.

The phrase 'scientific explanations' has the same unsupported problem. You need to find a source that says that, else it is just OR. OtisDixon (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Methodological Naturalism is the foundation for scientific methodology. But Schafersman says that Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that maintains that nature operates by the laws of physics, i.e. natural processes, and Naturalism is a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by Biblical creationism. Thus it is Naturalism's point of view that nature operates by natural process and so science follows suit. And, Naturalism opposes Creationism therefore so does science based on Methodological Naturalism. So I believe that "naturalistic position that they came about through natural processes," is more accurate than the original statement. OtisDixon (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a "sky is blue" thing. The scientific method looks at measurable things which, yes, occur in "nature" and the scientific method limits hypotheses to those that are testable via things you can measure. There are no big metaphysics here; it is practical thing. This article is not going to define "science". Creationists need to figure out what stances to take with regard to what science tells us - rejecting it or accommodating it, to various degrees. Most of the article is about that. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

re OtisDixon , from Schafersman; "Science, as I hoped everyone understood by now, requires at least methodological naturalism; supernatural explanations, therefore, are illegitimate .... there is at least one criterion of legitimate science that correctly identifies scientific creationism and all forms of supernatural explanation in science as pseudoscience. This is the criterion of testability. It dates from the beginning of the nineteenth century when scientists began to explicitly eschew supernatural explanations, and it was quickly recognized and identified in the work of the first philosopher of science, John Herschel, who is responsible for first explicating the hypothetico-deductive method of science." Also, "Because evolutionary scientists supposedly are caught up in a metaphysical viewpoint that rejects the possibility of a creator, creationists contend that evolutionists are unable to countenance evidence for supernatural intervention in the history of life. Actually, modern science has omitted the supernatural for methodological, not philosophical, reasons". That's directly contrary to your proposed "naturalistic position that they came about through natural processes" – as Schafersman says, "All theistic scientists adopt such methodological naturalism, as well as the 40-50% of the U.S. population who believe in science, evolution, and also in God, the view known as "theistic evolution". So, your wording doesn't work. . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly I tend to see this argument a lot lately, that science could simply be reduced to philosophy. As Dave pointed out, in other words, it simply has to deal with what it can, which is the observable, the mesurable, etc. The success of this method is obvious through technology advancements and how sciences converge into multidisciplinary ones rather than sectarizing like traditions. This reminds me of those who accuse of pseudoskepticism those who investigate alleged spiritual phenomena scientifically and discover other means through which these illusions derive. They claim that they are refusing to "look at the spiritual evidence" or wait until it shows, which is simply not manifest to study... And we have such example at Misplaced Pages-famous WP:ARBPS: Pseudoskepticism is the willfully blind deprecation of viable, and often truthful, scientific beliefs. Pseudoskepticism derives from a generally authoritarian ideology, and the scientific beliefs that pseudoskeptics blindly dismiss are consequentially usually the ones that are not supported by the current majority of academic authorities. Are physics "authoritarian"? The world doesn't bend to our wishful thinking, sure... Are those who understand that pseudoskeptics? How can scientific understanding be reduced to philosophy, ideology or politics alone? —Paleo Neonate – 18:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it is a funky kind of relativism jujutsu. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Creationism & pseudoscience

(Note: conversation belongs here, so I copy/pasted from my talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC))

I have so many questions about your edit. First of all, the page says "promoting belief in pseudoscience". Pseudoscience applies to many topics, such as phrenology, psychic powers, spiritual healing, etc. Does that mean creationists believe in all of the listed topics? If not, either a clarification should be made, or the wording should be altered. Secondly, why do you so insist in this particular wording? My rewording didn't change the factual content of the sentence and didn't alter the meaning in any way - in addition to being less ambiguous and grammatically correct (removal of the superfluous the comma). I would really like to know the reasons.OlJa 22:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: This sort of conversation is best made on the article's talk page talk:Creationism. When one states they are "using science to solve x" That doesn't mean they are using all science. Saying it's pseudoscience doesn't mean it covers the gamut. Jim1138 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: You seem to agree with me, yourself explaining why your edit is wrong. Saying it's pseudoscience does NOT mean it covers the gamut - which is why I wanted to change the wording to "and is widely regarded as pseudoscience in the scientific community" rather than "promoting belief in pseudoscience", because the latter does indeed imply they believe in all of pseudoscience.la 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I've come up with another wording which literally has no effect on the article: "and instead promote pseudoscientific beliefs". la 23:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Categories: